But Parliamentary Library research shows lower income households pay a higher proportion of their income on fuel tax compared to those better off.

Labor's agriculture spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon says the ''North Shore treasurer's'' comments are a particular insult to those in the bush.

''In the bush we lack public transport and most places we go – to shop, to work, to learn, to socialise and even to look for work – are a long way away,'' he said in a statement.

Mr Hockey has been asked if he realised if his comments sounded callous.

"I'm sorry if that's the case but the fact is that the Labor party says that it's an unjust initiative, unfair initiative, higher income people aren't paying enough, well here is an initiative where higher income people pay on average three times the amount of lower income households in the fuel excise," he said.

He has also hit back at Labor's depictions of him as an out of touch ''cigar-chomping Foghorn Leghorn of Australian politics'', saying he has no regrets about being pictured smoking cigars during budget preparations and had smoked them since he was 16.

He said he didn't care about "personality politics" because "you've got to be who you are".

"Everyone keeps talking about how politicians are sometimes phoney, I mean I am what I am," he said.

Mr Hockey said "I'm doing my best for the country" and noted the "conga line of criticism" but cautioned that was "self-deprecating humour" and added "unless someone wants to interpret that as well".

''I think the hysteria is way over the top, what Joe has said is just stating the facts; there' more hysteria here than you get a Beatles concert,'' he told Fairfax Media.

''If stating the facts creates a difficulty in selling public policy I worry about the future of our debate, he stated as much facts as he was asked to.''

Senator Canavan said he understood the media wanted to ''sell papers'', but said he is ''constantly frustrated how boarding school and undergraduate the debate in this country is''.

And he's revealed himself a fan of Foghorn Leghorn, the fictional cartoon Looney Toons rooster character and declared ''I like cigars too''.

''I don't know what the problem with Foghorn Leghorn is,'' he added.

But some government MPs are unimpressed by Mr Hockey's remarks.

Queensland Liberal Teresa Gambaro took a veiled swipe at the Treasurer’s comments.

''It's always difficult to be the bearer of bad news. The challenge lies not in scaring people, but in showing them there's a way out of Labor’s mess,'' she told Fairfax Media.

Ms Gambaro said the fuel excise increase was projected to cost an average household about 40 cents extra per week but said ''no one should be under any illusion that it's a bitter pill cleaning up the debt Labor always leaves behind'', she said.

Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi described Mr Hockey's comments as a distraction the government does not need.

He said he opposed the increase in the fuel excise because it was a new tax that the Coalition promised not to introduce before its election to government.

He confirmed to Fairfax Media that he has informed the Prime Minister that he would not be voting for the measure, when and if it is put to Parliament. Labor and the Greens are also opposing the measure.

Call to apologise

Labor leader Bill Shorten called on Mr Hockey to apologise.

''Joe Hockey should apologise to Australians for insulting them by saying that you don't have to worry about he tax if you don't drive a car. Joe Hockey needs to come back to earth from planet Hockey,'' he said in Perth.

Senator Ian Macdonald told ABC Radio on Thursday that "you have to have a car whether you're rich or poor . . . regional Australia don't have the alternative of public transport".

NSW Nationals senator John Williams said people in the bush needed cars.

''You have to have a car whether you're rich or poor, you need a vehicle to be able to get from one place to the other,'' he told ABC Radio on Thursday.

''Regional Australians don't have the alternative of public transport or other means of getting there.''

"No disrespect to our Treasurer, but I think it shows a bit of a disconnect between Joe and I think, the everyday Australian," Senator Muir told Fairfax Radio.

"The comment in my view is a little bit concerning. If you’re a school leaver, or unexpectedly unemployed, low-to-middle income, you live in a rural, regional or remote area, you do need to use your vehicle and quite regularly, a lot. "

Consumer group One Big Switch argued poor people spend a higher proportion of their income on fuel and live further away, meaning they're hit twice.

A major survey in June showed the biggest average fuel bill in Sydney was in the south-western suburbs, while those in Melbourne's north-east and north-west paid the most for petrol on average.

607 comments

two question 1) how many people in the rich part of town have company carsand don't actually pay for fuel, 2) when was the last time joe filled up the family car?

Hockey's statement is the latest sign that the anti robin hoods have taken over. We are now back to the good old days of class warfare.

Commenter

kellybellyfonte

Date and time

August 14, 2014, 9:12AM

It's also true that poor people spend less on cigars. Apparently.

Commenter

Cuban

Date and time

August 14, 2014, 9:15AM

Hopefully he will blow down his own house of horrors(libs)..

Commenter

giblet

Date and time

August 14, 2014, 9:17AM

Richer people have more disposable income and spend more on their transport and other goods, which includes the cost of petrol. Like it or not, Hockey IS correct that an increase will hit them harder. As for percentages of incomes, Hockey may be incorrect although the real figure is not simple as different forms of consumption require different petrol amounts.

Commenter

Tom

Location

Sydney

Date and time

August 14, 2014, 9:31AM

Not to dampen the LNP Hate Parade here, but has anyone looked to Europe or our neighbors, NZ as to what THEY pay in fuel excise?

Fuel is comparatively cheap in Oz! We actually HAVE public transport! This IS the good life!

And what is more alarmingly hypocritical is that the same Politicians that decry the removal of the Carbon Tax, ALSO decry a higher fuel excise - I wonder how that green ambition and logic works - or does economics not enter into their thinking at all (as usual)?

Commenter

Enraged Sock-puppet

Date and time

August 14, 2014, 9:33AM

Joe, it is not reality, it is the only limited knowledge solution you can come up with. Even Clive Palmer has suggested some huge savings you could make elsewhere, then there is much more you could change and cut in wastages, furthermore, the double standard of saying we have no money and in tight times introduce something as costly as the parental leave that we never had, as a new forever yearly cost and get people reliant on it, as hard to remove once people get to like it. It can look good two party leaders putting minds together to create a new budget, and it assures not only it gets passed but also supported, but, you need to give Clive's ideas more credence..Your main failure is reneging on job creation and infrastructure to kick start the economy, by not doing so, your losing more money than a hung budget as well as breaching an election promise and that famous team Abbott CONTRACT TO ALL AUSTRALIANS that was on TV and in writing.

Commenter

Brian Woods

Location

Glenroy

Date and time

August 14, 2014, 9:51AM

Facts are facts, and if these facts are in fact facts they should be seen as facts and not hidden or refracted or detracted from. Joe Hockey is in fact a factotum of the Crown.

Commenter

David Morrison

Location

Blue Mountains

Date and time

August 14, 2014, 9:51AM

Enraged sock puppet, the Greens have made it clear that modelling of increase in fuel excise with all proceeds going to build more roads - Abbott's plan, I believe - leads to higher emissions, not lower. It is for that reason they have opposed the increase in the fuel excise. I don't even vote Greens and I know that... they haven't exactly kept it a secret. Apparently it's just a better news story to say they are merely being obstructionist, so it's that version of events that is getting airplay. I believe they have said something along the lines of changing that position if significant part of the increase in fuel excise revenue is diverted to public transport infrastructure, because that changes the impact of the tax increase on emissions. Sounds quite logical to me.

As for Labor's rationale, I don't know. But I do think any government that managed to hide so many callous policies pre-election deserves to have everything they didn't share with the Australian voting public blocked at this very first budget.

Commenter

Susan

Location

Sydney

Date and time

August 14, 2014, 9:53AM

Tom: That would be accurate, if the article you posted on didn't provide reference to surveys showing that the people in Sydneys South and West spend more on fuel than anyone else in Sydney.

Related Coverage

13 Aug
Treasurer Joe Hockey's charm offensive with Senate crossbenchers in a bid to pass the budget was derailed on Wednesday after he suggested increasing fuel excise would not hit the poor because they "don't have cars or actually drive very far".